Sorry, that was Human Action. My apologies for the mix up.
Neither.
-VM
You have strong faith in the government’s ability to live by its own rules. I don’t. Every day I can pick up the paper and read about government officials violating laws, regulations, and policies. From CIA torture to Hillary Clinton not turning over her emails to prosecutor misconduct, the government breaks its own rules routinely.
And I can find individuals in private companies doing the same damn things. Can you show me that it happens more often in the public sector?
The key point is that when someone in the private sector violates you, you have some legal recourse (after all, that’s what government is for). When the government violates you, you have none…or whatever recourse the government *chooses *to give you.
The goal of limited government is to try to narrow down the spheres of human activity where an all-powerful government can violate you on a whim.
-VM
My key point was the question I asked: Can you show me that it happens more often in the public sector than in the private sector? BTW, a not-so-little side effect of a limited government would be less regulation(and therefore less punishment) of transgressions in the private sector.
I don’t think that necessarily follows. While it’s true that most libertarians are not fond of regulation (specifically, what we would call excessive regulation), we don’t mean by “limited government” to say that every piece should be arbitrarily small; rather, there should be far fewer pieces.
More specifically, what we mean is that government should be limited to specific functions. As it turns out, protecting individual rights (which I believe to be logically equivalent to “punishment of transgressions in the private sector”) is one of those functions, and we wouldn’t argue for government to be smaller than necessary to achieve that end.
And, yes, I am aware that there are “libertarians” who promote more anarchist visions. To be clear, I’m not in any way trying to speak for them (or anyone else but me). However, in my opinion, these people are not a “kind of” libertarian; they are a “kind of” anarchist, and no amount of supposedly libertarian rhetoric in defense of anarchy will make you a libertarian.
Libertarians believe in individual freedom, and most of us have sense enough to know that you can’t have much freedom with no ability to protect it. Well, some really strong people might, but everyone else is screwed. A truly libertarian philosophy is that the poor, uneducated laborer is no more or less entitled to personal liberty than a rich white industrialist, and the evils of government are worth risking in pursuit of that goal.
-VM
Nah, I just believe that people respond to incentives, and systems that align incentives with the desired outcomes tend to function well. Universal basic income can be structured that way, and private charity can’t. There will always be a role for private charity, as there always has been, but as a supplement, not the entire system. It’s just that simple. And frankly, a basic income accords much more strongly with personal sovereignty than depending on charity does, making it the more libertarian solution to boot.
Good luck convincing an actual libertarian of that.
-VM
And who gets to define [del]True Scotsman[/del]actual libertarian?
Ahem: Milton Friedman on the Negative Income Tax. If the guy who wrote Capitalism and Freedom and Free To Choose doesn’t meet your definition of a libertarian, then who does?
Or hey, how about Friedrich Hayek?
(Hayek’s program would have been more conditional than mine or Friedman’s, but it’s still a basic-income program).
If that’s not enough, there’s the entire Arizona school of libertarian thought, aka “bleeding-heart libertarianism”. See also this blog, and the work of Matt Zwolinkski.
In short: don’t confuse right-wing contempt for the poor with actual libertarianism.
I do, it’s a terrible burden. I exclude the anarchists, and the people who claim to care about freedom and personal sovereignty, then oppose any methods to actually achieve that, if it means paying a nickel more in taxes.
There’s actually a simple test. The first question is, “Do you enjoy being reviled by 95% of the population?” You can eliminate most of the pretenders right there.
-VM
Please consider me corrected and appropriately chastened…
I don’t think that’s what I did, so I don’t feel chastened on this point.
For what it’s worth, this particular libertarian isn’t against the intent of what you’re suggesting, I just don’t think it will work. Granting the disclaimer that I’m not an economist, I suspect it would just create a “kind of” inflation. Which is why I’d be surprised if many current libertarians (or any number of unicorns) would get behind it.
Having said that, it’s no less “worth a try” than any of the crap the social liberals are coming up with.
As a style note: I’m not sure that claiming something to be “more libertarian” is a good tactic for selling your idea, particularly in this forum. It’s a little like bragging that your new recipe for chocolate cake is “more fatal”.
-VM
That was remarkably on point, and incredibly fast.
-VM
No problem; there’s a diverse body of libertarian thought, and plenty of disagreement as to how to implement the shared ideals, and what those ideals actually mean. It’s a more complex subject than it gets credit for in these parts.
Sorry, that wasn’t meant as a criticism of you in particular.
The devil’s always in the details; I think it would work, but only if the implementation was managed correctly (for example, existing aid programs being stopped and replaced, not supplemented, by the NIT. Or, preventing state governments from sabotaging the program, or loading it down with restrictions. Or, combining it with reduction in spending in other areas, such as the massive taxpayer-funded industry devoted to aggression against other countries).
In this political climate, it hasn’t a chance. Given time, I think it’s inevitable.
Yes and no…part of my agenda is reclaiming libertarianism from those who’ve so badly poisoned the word, through their extremist and alienating positions. I maintain that those positions aren’t actually libertarian.
I’m going to tentatively classify this as a kind of optimism. If it does happen, while my confidence is not high, I will be rooting for its success.
Agreed. And I applaud the effort.
They wore me out years ago…every now and then I work up the motivation for a drive-by, but I still have nightmares about the robot libertopia that SingleDad tried to thought-imprison me in–while I was simultaneously arguing with a Communist (whose name escapes me) about the “value” contained in a chair. I do recall that, outside of political discussions, he was thoughtful and funny.
-VM
I consider myself a socialist libertarian, basically the force I am worried about MOST is government crushing individuals, that is the force I want to fight. Kidnapping drug users and putting them in cages, that shit.
I’ve always said there should be free bathing facilities and beds and basic food for the homeless provided on the government’s dime.
Sounds like an exercise in cognitive dissonance to me. I blame the restaurant industry for convincing everyone that a fusion buffet is a thing.
I’m guessing that you might piss off less people, but for those that are left, you’re going to REALLY piss them off.
On the one hand, I agree with the basic idea. On the other, I recommend you tone down the rhetoric if you want to preach to non-choir-members.
And I’ve always said, “The only good cat is a dead cat.” Because, well, I hate cats.
-VM